Cost-effectiveness analysis of a collaborative care programme for depression in primary care

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility study of a psychoeducational group intervention for people with depression and physical comorbidity in primary care

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a psychoeducational group intervention led by primary care (PC) nurses in relation to customary care to prevent the depression and improve quality of life in patients with physical comorbidity.

DESIGN

Economic evaluation based on data from randomized, multicenter clinical trial with blind response variables and a one-year follow-up, carried in the context of the PSICODEP study.

LOCATION

7 PC teams from Catalonia.

PARTICIPANTS

>50 year-old patients with depression and some physical comorbidity: diabetes mellitus type 2, ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and/or asthma.

INTERVENTION

12 psychoeducational group sessions, 1 per week, led by 2 PC nurses with prior training.

MEASUREMENTS

Effectiveness: depression-free days (DFD) calculated from the BDI-II and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from the Euroqol-5D. Direct costs: PC visits, mental health, emergencies and hospitalizations, drugs. Indirect costs: days of temporary disability (TD). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), cost-effectiveness (ΔCost/ΔDLD) and cost-utility (ΔCost/ΔQALY) were estimated.

RESULTS

The study includes 380 patients (intervention group [IG] = 204; control group [CG] = 176). 81.6% women; mean age 68.4 (SD = 8.8). The IG had a higher mean cost of visits, less of hospitalizations and less TD than the CG. The difference in costs between the IG and the CG was -357.95€ (95% CI: -2026.96 to 1311.06) at one year of follow-up. There was a mean of 11.95 (95% CI: -15.98 to 39.88) more DFD in the IG than in the CG. QALYs were similar (difference -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05). The ICERs were 29.95€/DLD and 35,795€/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychoeducational intervention is associated with an improvement in DFD, as well as a reduction in costs at 12 months, although not significantly. QALYs were very similar between groups.

Comparative analysis of algorithm-guided treatment and predefined duration treatment programmes for depression: exploring cost-effectiveness using routine care data

BACKGROUND

More knowledge on the cost-effectiveness of various depression treatment programmes can promote efficient treatment allocation and improve the quality of depression care.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the real-world cost-effectiveness of an algorithm-guided programme focused on remission to a predefined duration, patient preference-centred treatment programme focused on response using routine care data.

METHODS

A naturalistic study (n=6295 in the raw dataset) was used to compare the costs and outcomes of two programmes in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and depression-free days (DFD). Analyses were performed from a healthcare system perspective over a 2-year time horizon. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated, and the uncertainty of results was assessed using bootstrapping and sensitivity analysis.

FINDINGS

The algorithm-guided treatment programme per client yielded more DFDs (12) and more QALYs (0.013) at a higher cost (€3070) than the predefined duration treatment programme. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were around €256/DFD and €236 154/QALY for the algorithm guided compared with the predefined duration treatment programme. At a threshold value of €50 000/QALY gained, the programme had a probability of <10% of being considered cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The algorithm-guided programme led to larger health gains than the predefined duration treatment programme, but it was considerably more expensive, and hence not cost-effective at current Dutch thresholds. Depending on the preferences and budgets available, each programme has its own benefits.

CLINICAL IMPLICATION

This study provides valuable information to decision-makers for optimising treatment allocation and enhancing quality of care cost-effectively.

Barriers, facilitators, and proposals for improvement in the implementation of a collaborative care program for depression: a qualitative study of primary care physicians and nurses

BACKGROUND

Primary care plays a central role in the treatment of depression. Nonetheless, shortcomings in its management and suboptimal outcomes have been identified. Collaborative care models improve processes for the management of depressive disorders and associated outcomes. We developed a strategy to implement the INDI collaborative care program for the management of depression in primary health care centers across Catalonia. The aim of this qualitative study was to evaluate a trial implementation of the program to identify barriers, facilitators, and proposals for improvement.

METHODS

One year after the implementation of the INDI program in 18 public primary health care centers we performed a qualitative study in which the opinions and experiences of 23 primary care doctors and nurses from the participating centers were explored in focus groups. We performed thematic content analysis of the focus group transcripts.

RESULTS

The results were organized into three categories: facilitators, barriers, and proposals for improvement as perceived by the health care professionals involved. The most important facilitator identified was the perception that the INDI collaborative care program could be a useful tool for reorganizing processes and improving the management of depression in primary care, currently viewed as deficient. The main barriers identified were of an organizational nature: heavy workloads, lack of time, high staff turnover and shortages, and competing demands. Additional obstacles were inertia and resistance to change among health care professionals. Proposals for improvement included institutional buy-in to guarantee enduring support and the organizational changes needed for successful implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

The INDI program is perceived as a useful, viable program for improving the management of depression in primary care. Uptake by primary care centers and health care professionals, however, was poor. The identification and analysis of barriers and facilitators will help refine the strategy to achieve successful, widespread implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03285659 ; Registered 18th September, 2017.

International perspective on integrated care models in child and adult mental health

The dearth of child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) is a global problem. Integrating CAMHS in primary care has been offered as a solution. We sampled integrated care perspectives from colleagues around the world. Our findings include various models of integrated care namely: the stepped care model in Australia; shared care in the United Kingdom (UK) and Spain; school-based collaborative care in Qatar, Singapore and the state of Texas in the US; collaborative care in Canada, Brazil, US, and Uruguay; coordinated care in the US; and, developing collaborative care models in low-resource settings, like Kenya and Micronesia. These findings provide insights into training initiatives necessary to build CAMHS workforce capacity using integrated care models, each with the ultimate goal of improving access to care. Despite variations and progress in implementing integrated care models internationally, common challenges exist: funding within complex healthcare systems, limited training mechanisms, and geopolitical/policy issues. Supportive healthcare policy, robust training initiatives, ongoing quality improvement and measurement of outcomes across programs would provide data-driven support for the expansion of integrated care and ensure its sustainability.

Considering the societal perspective in economic evaluations: a systematic review in the case of depression

BACKGROUND

Depressive disorders are associated with a high burden of disease. However, due to the burden posed by the disease on not only the sufferers, but also on their relatives, there is an ongoing debate about which costs to include and, hence, which perspective should be applied. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to examine whether the change between healthcare payer and societal perspective leads to different conclusions of cost-utility analyses in the case of depression.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted to identify economic evaluations of interventions in depression, launched on Medline and the Cost-Effectiveness Registry of the Tufts University using a ten-year time horizon (2008-2018). In a two-stepped screening process, cost-utility studies were selected by means of specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, relevant findings was extracted and, if not fully stated, calculated by the authors of this work.

RESULTS

Overall, 53 articles with 92 complete economic evaluations, reporting costs from healthcare payer/provider and societal perspective, were identified. More precisely, 22 estimations (24%) changed their results regarding the cost-effectiveness quadrant when the societal perspective was included. Furthermore, 5% of the ICURs resulted in cost-effectiveness regarding the chosen threshold (2% of them became dominant) when societal costs were included. However, another four estimations (4%) showed the opposite result: these interventions were no longer cost-effective after the inclusion of societal costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Summarising the disparities in results and applied methods, the results show that societal costs might alter the conclusions in cost-utility analyses. Hence, the relevance of the perspectives chosen should be taken into account when carrying out an economic evaluation. This systematic review demonstrates that the results of economic evaluations can be affected by different methods available for estimating non-healthcare costs.

The Effectiveness of Patient-Centred Medical Home-Based Models of Care versus Standard Primary Care in Chronic Disease Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised and Non-Randomised Controlled Trials

Patient-centred care by a coordinated primary care team may be more effective than standard care in chronic disease management. We synthesised evidence to determine whether patient-centred medical home (PCMH)-based care models are more effective than standard general practitioner (GP) care in improving biomedical, hospital, and economic outcomes. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched to identify randomised (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials that evaluated two or more principles of PCMH among primary care patients with chronic diseases. Study selection, data extraction, quality assessment using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) appraisal tools, and grading of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach were conducted independently. A quantitative synthesis, where possible, was pooled using random effects models and the effect size estimates of standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals were reported. Of the 13,820 citations, we identified 78 eligible RCTs and 7 quasi trials which included 60,617 patients. The findings suggested that PCMH-based care was associated with significant improvements in depression episodes (SMD -0.24; 95% CI -0.35, -0.14; I2 = 76%) and increased odds of remission (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.46, 2.21; I2 = 0%). There were significant improvements in the health-related quality of life (SMD 0.10; 95% CI 0.04, 0.15; I2 = 51%), self-management outcomes (SMD 0.24; 95% CI 0.03, 0.44; I2 = 83%), and hospital admissions (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.70, 0.98; I2 = 0%). In terms of biomedical outcomes, with exception to total cholesterol, PCMH-based care led to significant improvements in blood pressure, glycated haemoglobin, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol outcomes. The incremental cost of PCMH care was identified to be small and significantly higher than standard care (SMD 0.17; 95% CI 0.08, 0.26; I2 = 82%). The quality of individual studies ranged from "fair" to "good" by meeting at least 60% of items on the quality appraisal checklist. Additionally, moderate to high heterogeneity across studies in outcomes resulted in downgrading the included studies as moderate or low grade of evidence. PCMH-based care has been found to be superior to standard GP care in chronic disease management. Results of the review have important implications that may inform patient, practice, and policy-level changes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of systematic fast-track transition from oncological treatment to specialised palliative care at home for patients and their caregivers: the DOMUS trial

BACKGROUND

While hospitals remain the most common place of death in many western countries, specialised palliative care (SPC) at home is an alternative to improve the quality of life for patients with incurable cancer. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a systematic fast-track transition process from oncological treatment to SPC enriched with a psychological intervention at home for patients with incurable cancer and their caregivers.

METHODS

A full economic evaluation with a time horizon of six months was performed from a societal perspective within a randomised controlled trial, the DOMUS trial ( Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT01885637). The primary outcome of the health economic analysis was a incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is obtained by comparing costs required per gain in Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY). The costs included primary and secondary healthcare costs, cost of intervention and informal care from caregivers. Public transfers were analysed in seperate analysis. QALYs were measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 for patients and SF-36 for caregivers. Bootstrap simulations were performed to obtain the ICER estimate.

RESULTS

In total, 321 patients (162 in intervention group, 159 in control group) and 235 caregivers (126 in intervention group, 109 in control group) completed the study. The intervention resulted in significantly higher QALYs for patients when compared to usual care (p-value = 0.026), while being more expensive as well. In the 6 months observation period, the average incremental cost of intervention compared to usual care was €2015 per patient (p value < 0.000). The mean incremental gain was 0.01678 QALY (p-value = 0.026). Thereby, the ICER was €118,292/QALY when adjusting for baseline costs and quality of life. For the caregivers, we found no significant differences in QALYs between the intervention and control group (p-value = 0.630). At a willingness to pay of €80,000 per QALY, the probability that the intervention is cost-effective lies at 15% in the base case scenario.

CONCLUSION

This model of fast-track SPC enriched with a psychological intervention yields better QALYs than usual care with a large increase in costs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was prospectively registered 25.6.2013. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01885637 .

Cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care program for managing major depression and chronic musculoskeletal pain in primary care: Economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

We designed a collaborative care program for the integrated management of chronic musculoskeletal pain and depression, which frequently coexist in primary care patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this program compared with care as usual.

METHODS

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial. Results were monitored over a 12-month period. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We performed cost-effectiveness analyses from the perspectives of the healthcare system and society using an intention-to-treat approach with imputation of missing values.

RESULTS

We evaluated 328 patients (167 in the intervention group and 161 in the control group) with chronic musculoskeletal pain and major depression at baseline. From the healthcare system perspective, the mean incremental cost was €234 (p = .17) and the mean incremental effectiveness was 0.009 QALYs (p = .66), resulting in an ICER of €23,989/QALY. Costs from the societal perspective were €235 (p = .16), yielding an ICER of €24,102/QALY. These estimates were associated with a high degree of uncertainty illustrated on the cost-effectiveness plane.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to our expectations, the collaborative care program had no significant effects on health status, and although the additional costs of implementing the program compared with care as usual were not high, we were unable to demonstrate a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio, largely due to the high degree of uncertainty surrounding the estimates.

Cost-effectiveness of a care manager collaborative care programme for patients with depression in primary care: economic evaluation of a pragmatic randomised controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a care manager (CM) programme compared with care as usual (CAU) for treatment of depression at primary care centres (PCCs) from a healthcare as well as societal perspective.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis.

SETTING

23 PCCs in two Swedish regions.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with depression (n=342).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A cost-effectiveness analysis was applied on a cluster randomised trial at PCC level where patients with depression had 3 months of contact with a CM (11 intervention PCCs, n=163) or CAU (12 control PCCs, n=179), with follow-up 3 and 6 months. Effectiveness measures were based on the number of depression-free days (DFDs) calculated from the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale-Self and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results were expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: ∆Cost/∆QALY and ∆Cost/∆DFD. Sampling uncertainty was assessed based on non-parametric bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Health benefits were higher in intervention group compared with CAU group: QALYs (0.357 vs 0.333, p<0.001) and DFD reduction of depressive symptom score (79.43 vs 60.14, p<0.001). The mean costs per patient for the 6-month period were €368 (healthcare perspective) and €6217 (societal perspective) for the intervention patients and €246 (healthcare perspective) and €7371 (societal perspective) for the control patients (n.s.). The cost per QALY gained was €6773 (healthcare perspective) and from a societal perspective the CM programme was dominant.

DISCUSSION

The CM programme was associated with a gain in QALYs as well as in DFD, while also being cost saving compared with CAU from a societal perspective. This result is of high relevance for decision-makers on a national level, but it must be observed that a CM programme for depression implies increased costs at the primary care level.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02378272; Results.

The effectiveness of Culturally Sensitive Collaborative Treatment of depressed Chinese in family medicine clinics: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the Culturally Sensitive Collaborative Treatment (CSCT) would improve outcomes for patients with major depression who were managed in family medicine clinics in Taiwan.

METHOD

A single-blinded randomized trial was conducted in 26 family medicine clinics. Patients with major depressive disorder were consecutively randomized to either CSCT or treatment as usual (TAU). The primary outcome was the severity of depression. Secondary outcomes included treatment response, treatment remission, quality of life, and medication adherence. Outcomes were compared using hierarchical linear models (mixed-effects models) from baseline to 26-week follow-up assessments.

RESULTS

Of the 280 patients, 141 were randomized to TAU and 139 to CSCT. Hierarchical linear modeling revealed that the CSCT group displayed significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms over the study period when compared to the TAU group (B=-2.60, P<0.001). The odds of achieving the response, remission, and medication adherence were significantly greater for the CSCT group compared to the TAU group (odds ratio=4.65, 4.12, and 2.06, respectively; all Ps<0.05). However, both groups did not differ significantly in quality of life.

CONCLUSION

CSCT is effective in improving treatment outcomes for major depression in family medicine clinics in Taiwan.

Development and assessment of an active strategy for the implementation of a collaborative care approach for depression in primary care (the INDI·i project)

Background

Primary care is the principal clinical setting for the management of depression. However, significant shortcomings have been detected in its diagnosis and clinical management, as well as in patient outcomes. We developed the INDI collaborative care model to improve the management of depression in primary care. This intervention has been favorably evaluated in terms of clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness in a clinical trial. Our aim is to bring this intervention from the scientific context into clinical practice.

Methods

Objective: To test for the feasibility and impact of a strategy for implementing the INDI model for depression in primary care.

Design: A quasi-experiment conducted in primary care. Several areas will be established to implement the new program and other, comparable areas will serve as control group. The study constitutes the preliminary phase preceding generalization of the model in the Catalan public healthcare system.

Participants: The target population of the intervention are patients with major depression. The implementation strategy will also involve healthcare professionals, primary care centers, as well as management departments and the healthcare organization itself in the geographical areas where the study will be conducted: Camp de Tarragona and Vallès Occidental (Catalonia).

Intervention: The INDI model is a program for improving the management of depression involving clinical, instructional, and organizational interventions including the participation of nurses as care managers, the efficacy and efficiency of which has been proven in a clinical trial. We will design an active implementation strategy for this model based on the PARIHS (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) framework.

Measures: Qualitative and quantitative measures will be used to evaluate variables related to the successful implementation of the model: acceptability, utility, penetration, sustainability, and clinical impact.

Discussion

This project tests the transferability of a healthcare intervention supported by scientific research to clinical practice. If implementation is successful in this experimental phase, we will use the information and experience obtained to propose and plan the generalization of the INDI model for depression in the Catalan healthcare system. We expect the program to benefit patients, the healthcare system, and society.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03285659; Registered 12th September, 2017.

Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions

BACKGROUND

Shared care has been used in the management of many chronic conditions with the assumption that it delivers better care than primary or specialty care alone; however, little is known about the effectiveness of shared care.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of shared care health service interventions designed to improve the management of chronic disease across the primary/specialty care interface. This is an update of a previously published review.Secondary questions include the following:1. Which shared care interventions or portions of shared care interventions are most effective?2. What do the most effective systems have in common?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library to 12 October 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

One review author performed the initial abstract screen; then two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating the effectiveness of shared care interventions for people with chronic conditions in primary care and community settings. The intervention was compared with usual care in that setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of results when possible and carried out a narrative synthesis of the remainder of the results. We presented the results in a 'Summary of findings' table, using a tabular format to show effect sizes for all outcome types.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 studies of shared care interventions for chronic disease management (N = 18,859), 39 of which were RCTs, two CBAs and one an NRCT. Of these 42 studies, 41 examined complex multi-faceted interventions and lasted from six to 24 months. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from moderate to high certainty. Results showed probably few or no differences in clinical outcomes overall with a tendency towards improved blood pressure management in the small number of studies on shared care for hypertension, chronic kidney disease and stroke (mean difference (MD) 3.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.68 to 5.25)(based on moderate-certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved, particularly in response to depression treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.62; six studies, N = 1708) and recovery from depression (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.57 to 4.26; 10 studies, N = 4482) in studies examining the 'stepped care' design of shared care interventions (based on high-certainty evidence). Investigators noted modest effects on mean depression scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.29, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.20; six studies, N = 3250). Differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), processes of care and participation and default rates in shared care services were probably limited (based on moderate-certainty evidence). Studies probably showed little or no difference in hospital admissions, service utilisation and patient health behaviours (with evidence of moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that shared care improves depression outcomes and probably has mixed or limited effects on other outcomes. Methodological shortcomings, particularly inadequate length of follow-up, may account in part for these limited effects. Review findings support the growing evidence base for shared care in the management of depression, particularly stepped care models of shared care. Shared care interventions for other conditions should be developed within research settings, with account taken of the complexity of such interventions and awareness of the need to carry out longer studies to test effectiveness and sustainability over time.

[Collaborative and stepped care for depression: Development of a model project within the Hamburg Network for Mental Health (psychenet.de)]

BACKGROUND

Depression is one of the most widespread mental disorders in Germany and causes a great suffering and involves high costs. Guidelines recommend stepped and interdisciplinary collaborative care models for the treatment of depression.

OBJECTIVES

Stepped and collaborative care models are described regarding their efficacy and cost-effectiveness. A current model project within the Hamburg Network for Mental Health exemplifies how guideline-based stepped diagnostics and treatment incorporating innovative low-intensity interventions are implemented by a large network of health care professionals and clinics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An accompanying evaluation using a cluster randomized controlled design assesses depressive symptom reduction and cost-effectiveness for patients treated within "Health Network Depression" ("Gesundheitsnetz Depression", a subproject of psychenet.de) compared with patients treated in routine care.

RESULTS

Over 90 partners from inpatient and outpatient treatment have been successfully involved in recruiting over 600 patients within the stepped care model. Communication in the network was greatly facilitated by the use of an innovative online tool for the supply and reservation of treatment capacities. The participating professionals profit from the improved infrastructure and the implementation of advanced training and quality circle work.

CONCLUSIONS

New treatment models can greatly improve the treatment of depression owing to their explicit reference to guidelines, the establishment of algorithms for diagnostics and treatment, the integration of practices and clinics, in addition to the implementation of low-intensity treatment alternatives. These models could promote the development of a disease management program for depression.

Cost-utility of collaborative care for major depressive disorder in primary care in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

Major depression is a great burden on society, as it is associated with high disability/costs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of Collaborative Care (CC) for major depressive disorder compared to Care As Usual (CAU) in a primary health care setting from a societal perspective.

METHODS

A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted, including 93 patients that were identified by screening (45-CC, 48-CAU). Another 57 patients were identified by the GP (56-CC, 1-CAU). The outcome measures were TiC-P, SF-HQL and EQ-5D, respectively measuring health care utilization, production losses and general health related quality of life at baseline three, six, nine and twelve months. A cost-utility analysis was performed for patients included by screening and a sensitivity analysis was done by also including patients identified by the GP.

RESULTS

The average annual total costs was €1131 (95% C.I., €-3158 to €750) lower for CC compared to CAU. The average quality of life years (QALYs) gained was 0.02 (95% C.I., -0.004 to 0.04) higher for CC, so CC was dominant from a societal perspective. Taking a health care perspective, CC was less cost-effective due to higher costs, €1173 (95% C.I., €-216 to €2726), of CC compared to CAU which led to an ICER of 53,717 Euro/QALY. The sensitivity analysis showed dominance of CC.

CONCLUSION

The cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective showed that CC was dominant to CAU. CC may be a promising treatment for depression in the primary care setting. Further research should explore the cost-effectiveness of long-term CC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register ISRCTN15266438.

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for the treatment of depressive disorders in primary care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

For the treatment of depressive disorders, the framework of collaborative care has been recommended, which showed improved outcomes in the primary care sector. Yet, an earlier literature review did not find sufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care.

PURPOSE

To systematically review studies on the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care, compared with usual care for the treatment of patients with depressive disorders in primary care.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in major databases was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Methodological quality of the articles was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. To ensure comparability across studies, cost data were inflated to the year 2012 using country-specific gross domestic product inflation rates, and were adjusted to international dollars using purchasing power parities (PPP).

RESULTS

In total, 19 cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed. The included studies had sample sizes between n = 65 to n = 1,801, and time horizons between six to 24 months. Between 42% and 89% of the CHEC quality criteria were fulfilled, and in only one study no risk of bias was identified. A societal perspective was used by five studies. Incremental costs per depression-free day ranged from dominance to US$PPP 64.89, and incremental costs per QALY from dominance to US$PPP 874,562.

CONCLUSION

Despite our review improved the comparability of study results, cost-effectiveness of collaborative care compared with usual care for the treatment of patients with depressive disorders in primary care is ambiguous depending on willingness to pay. A still considerable uncertainty, due to inconsistent methodological quality and results among included studies, suggests further cost-effectiveness analyses using QALYs as effect measures and a time horizon of at least 1 year.